General Election 2024

It's not a precis, it's a direct quote. The EHRC report has a whole chapter called 'A Failure of Leadership', page 100, but their view is best summarised by the following quote:

We found specific examples of harassment, discrimination and political
interference in our evidence, but equally of concern was a lack of leadership
within the Labour Party on these issues, which is hard to reconcile with its stated
commitment to a zero-tolerance approach to antisemitism.

The Forde Report says the following:

"In contrast to the widespread response from the membership, some key figures within the Party were notably silent ... Regrettably, certain prominent members of the Party (including those central to the factual matrix) either declined to meet with the Panel or failed to respond to our requests for evidence. Most notably, while he was a signatory to a joint written submission, Jeremy Corbyn did not engage in our requests to interview him"

You are fundamentally wrong on your interpretation of the EHRC report btw. It does not matter if it found that Labour had institutionally discriminated against Jewish people on one or a hundred occasions, that it found we had done so at all IS the judgement. It had 220 complaints to choose from, of which it investigated 58, and 12 from the Labour Party itself. The detailed analysis it published to demonstrate the legitimacy of the ruling was literally the tip of the iceberg.

I don't understand joining a political party.

It's a bit like a club, or a forum.

In the interests of balance - it’s also possible you’ve misread the report, or misunderstood what he was saying.

Although - I just spent 10 minutes word searching “serious” and “Corbyn” in the Forde report and also couldn’t find any of those suggestions, but I gave up.

I don’t have a good understanding of it all and in part am just trying to improve that.

I get that. But what does the 0 axis represent?

In simple terms say if I think that:

1. The state should prohibit people being able to pay for education.
   
2. The state should prohibit business from making certain types of cars
   
   

Am I a libitarian who should be way below the axis, or somewhere at least around 0 to a bit above?

Imo on that survey it is likely if you answer that you think should should be able to have an abortion and the state shouldn't control your sex life then you = libitarian. Which is a ridiculous benchmark.

Dude the irony radiation from this is killing me

or a forum.

Though modern political parties are such broad churches accommodating wildly different views, this forum (for example) seems populated totally by lefty libs, (at least this thread is)

I should've stood as a candidate.

where do we have most forumengers?

might even have not lost my deposit

You'd get my vote unfortunately I think there is only me and @hazzelfrazzel where I am

where do we have most forumengers?

Surely something you can find out with your tech wizardry

I'd guess Hackney or Lambeth

I don't track people ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

In the olden days we could have put up a poll

This should raise the profile of the election, rather than the men in suits / rolled up shirtsleeves

1 Attachment

Or advertise two arrospoks for fifty dollar, in two different locations in London, collection only, first come first served.

By tracking the times taken for fixeh-skidders to arrive, assuming a 17mph average, we could have triangulated the baby blue hipster density of different boroughs.

(Assuming no one takes the New Oxford St route of death).

(Assuming no one takes the New Oxford St route of death).

For a fifty dollar arro', surely everyone would risk it!

Fucking hell. Next up you'll be leaning and all sorts.

The quote you've selectively used there is actually quite interesting, because while it criticises 'a lack of leadership within the Labour Party', it stops short of apportioning blame for this. Now, you may say it's the leader's job, the buck stops with him, etc. But that would be to ignore the Party's own internal rule, its structure and the very real evidence of interference in the process from both sides, not just from 'the left'. The EHRC has been quite careful in using the term 'leadership' because as far as it was concerned, that didn't just mean the leader of the opposition, a fact made plain by its distinguishing the two in the summary of its findings. So he was not specifically called out for a failure of leadership in that judgement, as you initially argue. Quite the reverse, in fact - the Labour Party as a whole was criticised for lapses in process, procedure, complaint handling, training. etc.

As for your Forde report quote, that Jeremy Corbyn didn't engage in requests to interview him was neither here nor there. Loads of people declined to be interviewed, including many of those responsible for the outbursts that sparked Forde being called in to investigate in the first place. So to interpret that as 'not tackling the issue and not taking it seriously' (by which you mean the issue of antisemitism) is disingenuous at best.

And actually, it does matter how many people had been 'institutionally discriminated against' when you're talking about the scale of something. That EHRC found evidence it had happened in two cases where it deemed the Labour Party was directly responsible. It also found wider evidence of antisemitic behaviour - but not that much wider. Nevertheless, the findings were acknowledged by Jeremy Corbyn when he made the statement to which you object. And the gravity of it was accepted. Nevertheless, the point that the scale was exaggerated still stands.

As for the the tip of the iceberg thing - I read the same bit of the EHRC report and if that iceberg consists of 18 further borderline cases and evidence of antisemitic conduct among members (that were not deemed the responsibility of the leader of the opposition), then it's not exactly an iceberg, is it? More a perfectly visible snowball.

But ultimately, you're saying Jeremy Corbyn should have had no right to reply, which is pretty wild IMO.

2010-2024 worst post-war Government according to Sir Anthony Seldon.

Given we've had demonstrably the worst 5 PM's in history, that's not exactly a hot take.

assuming a 17mph average

A bit assertive given our average age these days

The setup was "in the olden days"

Setup? No one follows threads anymore. It's all just individual comment hot takes. All context outside of the thread title is meaningless and devolves into hand-wringing social commentary anyway.

I would suggest there is only one forumenger in the bleak anti-cycling wastes of the LBHillingdon.

Remove that marsupial from your eye.
You know it, I know, most of this forum knows it,
but,
when Sir Anthony Seldon pronounces upon the last 14 years,
the chattering, as opposed to typing, classes take note.

Kate 'Covid Party' Burley is going full on Pete Burns, so that's a shrinking 'No' from me.

Imo on that survey it is likely if you answer that you think should should be able to have an abortion and the state shouldn't control your sex life then you = libitarian. Which is a ridiculous benchmark.

Totally agree with you there. There's a lot of nuance missing when you drop economic issues and focus on purely social ones, and it doesn't help that the axis is labelled 'libertarian', which we think of as anarcho-capitalist rather than just liberals with relatively normal ideas about distribution of power, positive/negative freedoms in conflict, and distrust of both the state and of private economic power.

As for your examples:

1. Prohibiting private education: depends on your view of authority since it represents private privilege for a small cohort. I'd be tempted to say it's very left but pretty central, if a little up on the scale. Removing the VAT exemption and charitable status is perfectly fine as a liberal policy though.

2. Prohibiting certain types of cars: This falls into the zero-sum category what with space constraints and environmental cost. I think this is perfectly fine to be considered liberal because it's in conflict with the mobility and lives of others.

Liberalism isn't just individual "do what you want whenever you want", it's subject to the collective freedom of others too, hence weird shit like early liberals designing the panopticon

I am not a member of a political party as I do not feel like any party truly reflects my thoughts/values. Certainly parties' values seem to change more than mine do from election to election.

I have mainly voted labour over the years, but have voted Lib Dem and Green over years depending on the election type (local/GE), who the candidate is and what that party's policies where at the time.